Audacity my ass, Mr. President
Mr. President,
I was happy to work my gnarled fingers to the bone for you last year: blogging, making calls and canvassing. I had to sacrifice much because I'm disabled and typing is hard for me. Everything is hard. But it was harder still to ignore the possibilities that you opened up for this country when you used the word "Hope" and said it was an audacious thing.
I believed you would fight for us and the things you spoke of. But the only audacity I see in you now is the audacity to make concessions on health care reform and then tell us it's all rainbows and unicorns.
In one debate after another with Hillary Clinton (27 of them, I think), you laid out the structure and function of what is now called the strong Public Option. For many of us who worked our hearts out for you, the Public Option is the core of health care reform. It was supposed to get the blood-sucking insurance companies off our backs; allow us to escape the private market for cheaper, nobler care; and put downward pressure on the obscene, skyrocketing cost of premiums.
You're supposed to be the Commander in Chief, but on domestic issues you've acted more like a Weasel First Class, sir. The Public Option is more than a "sliver" of health care reform, as you described it in Montana. It's the heart and soul of fixing a system that never cared for the millions of uninsured. It's part and parcel of forcing the insurance industry to curb its greed and finally treat people as the precious, rare creatures we are -- a species uniquely fabled, each of us, to possess a soul.
Mr. President, co-ops are not what you promised us. You did promise us. But you never, ever used the word "co-op" in reference to health care until this spring.
You're caving to all that is wrong with our politics and our health care system, President Obama.
Reverse your course now or the Coalition of the Hopeful you built will be forever lost to you. We did not drink the Kool-Aid. We have not been blind. We just believed in the evidence of things not seen. But what we see now is hurtful and not enough to secure any further loyalty or inspire any devotion of our time. We will not work for causes you will abandon when the going gets tough.
We did not drink the Kool-Aid. We expected you to lead. Has it all been an audacious lie?
Mr. President? Are you there?
I was happy to work my gnarled fingers to the bone for you last year: blogging, making calls and canvassing. I had to sacrifice much because I'm disabled and typing is hard for me. Everything is hard. But it was harder still to ignore the possibilities that you opened up for this country when you used the word "Hope" and said it was an audacious thing.
I believed you would fight for us and the things you spoke of. But the only audacity I see in you now is the audacity to make concessions on health care reform and then tell us it's all rainbows and unicorns.
In one debate after another with Hillary Clinton (27 of them, I think), you laid out the structure and function of what is now called the strong Public Option. For many of us who worked our hearts out for you, the Public Option is the core of health care reform. It was supposed to get the blood-sucking insurance companies off our backs; allow us to escape the private market for cheaper, nobler care; and put downward pressure on the obscene, skyrocketing cost of premiums.
You're supposed to be the Commander in Chief, but on domestic issues you've acted more like a Weasel First Class, sir. The Public Option is more than a "sliver" of health care reform, as you described it in Montana. It's the heart and soul of fixing a system that never cared for the millions of uninsured. It's part and parcel of forcing the insurance industry to curb its greed and finally treat people as the precious, rare creatures we are -- a species uniquely fabled, each of us, to possess a soul.
Mr. President, co-ops are not what you promised us. You did promise us. But you never, ever used the word "co-op" in reference to health care until this spring.
You're caving to all that is wrong with our politics and our health care system, President Obama.
Reverse your course now or the Coalition of the Hopeful you built will be forever lost to you. We did not drink the Kool-Aid. We have not been blind. We just believed in the evidence of things not seen. But what we see now is hurtful and not enough to secure any further loyalty or inspire any devotion of our time. We will not work for causes you will abandon when the going gets tough.
We did not drink the Kool-Aid. We expected you to lead. Has it all been an audacious lie?
Mr. President? Are you there?
Advertisement
that's a great letter, Ripper. Politics is a dirty corrupt game and when you look at every aspect of this so called health care debate, from the politicians stuffing their pockets with vast sums of corporate cash, to the industry lobbyists who purchase their votes with 1.4 million each day, to the NO FOR HIRE crowds they organize and starve of the truth, that corruption has never been more evident.
Deals are being struck with every constituency but average Americans.
Ask yourself this: who is representing your interests this morning in Washington? What about this afternoon? What about tomorrow?
Who will not sell you up the river?
Who recognizes that for a vast majority of Americans, when it comes to the health care crisis, loyalty is only one vote deep?
Screw us on this issue, President Obama and Democrats, and you won't ever have the chance to screw us again.
August 17, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The president is delivering exactly what he campaigned on. Here is a relevant quote from the linked analysis:
Obama breaks his health care reform plan down into three parts saying that it builds “upon the strengths of the U.S. health care system.”
The three parts are:
1. Quality, Affordable & Portable Health Coverage For All
2. Modernizing The U.S. Health Care System To Lower Costs & Improve Quality
3. Promoting Prevention & Strengthening Public Health
Obama claims that his health care reform plan will save the typical family up to $2,500 every year through:
* Health information technology investment aimed at reducing unnecessary spending that results from preventable errors and inefficient paper billing systems.
* Improving prevention and management of chronic conditions.
* Increasing insurance industry competition and reducing underwriting costs and profits in order to reduce insurance overhead.
* Providing reinsurance for catastrophic coverage, which will reduce insurance premiums.
* Making health insurance universal which will reduce spending on uncompensated care.
The current bills in various committees address most of those goals in one way or another. Looking back on it now, I am actually more impressed than I thought I would be by this point in time.
If we can get all of the stuff that is listed above, this will be a huge win for progressives that will mostly benefit the democratic party and any republican politician savvy enough to support it.
August 17, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
In any campaign a candidate says things in a way that many different things are understood by different listeners. But here is a less ambiguous assertion from Obama on July 17, 2009: "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans – including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest – and choose what’s best for your family."
Now I may have been stupid to listen to Obama and think he would support a vigorous public option or single payer system (I will not make THAT mistake again any time soon); on the other hand it doesn't inspire any respect from me that you expected him to be the phony double-talker he is and still supported him.
August 17, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read any of the current legislation in Congress. It can be found in Section 1, Division A, Title II: HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND RELATED PROVISIONS.
It's on page 72 if the length of the document seems intimidating. They specifically talk about an insurance exchange that will work in this fashion as part of the new regulations all health insurance companies will be required to operate under. I think the outlined list of campaign goals is pretty comprehensive and is likely to be reflective of the final legislation that emerges from the conference committee with bipartisan support.
It was plans like this one that got him republican votes. I am sorry the more liberal left feels betrayed, but as far as I can tell is doing everything he said he would, even I don't agree with many of the specifics, I agree with the overarching strategy so far.
August 17, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Jason. He's been coy, weak and vague since the election. He's cut deals that undercut reform. He has failed to draw any line in the sand and has bargained away a great deal already. No, he's not doing what he said he would. He needs surgery to replace a rubbery spine and missing cajone.
August 17, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have provided pretty credible evidence that based on what he said during the campaign is basically identical to the legislation likely to emerge from Congress with bipartisan support.
Discounting the fringes, of course, as they are rarely happy with any solution but the one they support.
August 17, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me direct you to this page at WebMD, which was published the day after the November 4 election and clearly describes a public option (as well as predicting the president's health care reform strategy point by point:
http://www.webmd.com/news/20081104/obama-wins-what-it-means-for-health-care
August 17, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what you are objecting to. Most of those items have been addressed in one form or another. Anything missing can be dealt with via follow-on legislative efforts.
August 17, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know I love ya, man, but you've been for co-ops for quite some times as the easy way to ... what?
Why expend all this political capital and come back from the hunt empty-handed? Sorry, I'm not waiting another generation for a public option to be considered as "follow up." If it can't pass now, what mythical Congress and president do you think will support it later? And why so eager to trade it away now for the unreachable goal of bipartisanship?
August 17, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wanting it all at once dooms the effort to failure. A year or two or ten is not a generation to wait. I don't even care if there are coops or a public option at all in this package. That is not a priority for me.
I actually think both are a worse solution than reforming Medicare and existing government medical plans in order to have them as the public option we need while saving it at the same time. A strong Medicare reform bill of that nature would time to craft and could lead to an unassailable public option next year that makes single payer unnecessary.
We need to have a series of wins to fix all that ails our nation's health care system. This is simply the goal-line push for the opening drive.
August 17, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are talking about the House bill, Jason, which is the only bill available to read at the moment. (That I'm aware of anyway.) Section II does indeed talk about a public option, but the senate will almost certainly scuttle the public option and insert coops when the two bills go to conference.
August 17, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The exchanges are revenue neutral and should remain the basis for the nonprofit coops in teh Senate.
At this point, we are arguing over semantics until the final legislation comes out. I suspect the spirit of the House plans will remain when it comes to defining the nonprofit coop option in the final bill. I think attacking the "public option" this next year as a part of the Medicare reform debate to come makes a lot of sense.
Tie off the biggest bleeder first, which is the depredations of private insurers, then move on to the next wound. Based on the wide-spread support for Medicare, I suspect the coops could be folded into reforms for the system as a way to change the make-up of the insured population, which is why Medicare remains unstable.
I'll be keeping my eye open for what emerges from the conference committee to be voted on by both chambers.
August 17, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So do you know how the coops are supposed to work? They don't sound very portable to me. I currently have an hmo in addition to my basic medicare. The hmo serves just my state. I'm in the process of moving and have had to find and contract with another hmo to cover me when I move. The medicare goes with me, of course, but it was a hassle to find other coverage and to be uncertain how good it is.
August 17, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way I understand it, the coops will incorporate the features of the exchange which was meant to put the findings of the medical best practice panels into affect.
They should require a minimum standard of benefits with a maximum cost, determined by taxable income I believe, to apply to all states across all private plans that compete for the business. It will also serve as a baseline, if they are smart about it, by the regulatory agencies for private insurance policies for public at large. Everyone must benefit from the thought and attention paid to the public plans being administered by the nonprofit coops.
I suspect its function much be like Sallie Mae who uses private financial institutions to provide government-backed loans at mandated percentages and amounts.
August 17, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
republicans who claim to like co-ops, will never support any bill because their goal is to hurt Obama, so the idea that anything must be bi-partisan to make it good is a joke.
did you notice insurance stocks soaring on word that the public option would fail?
lets get back to reality here.
August 17, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans hate coops.
August 17, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those stocks will soar right up until they realize the public option has nothing to do with them. Being unable to discriminate on preexisting conditions alone is going to kill a large part of their profits.
The "coops" and public option are the least important aspects of the bills currently being discussed.
August 18, 2009 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, he was pretty damn specific in the campaign regarding mandates - promised he wouldn't allow them ... nice selective quote though.
There are some other pretty specific specifics on this topic that don't seem to match what some committees are trying to produce. More important, they don't match what Obama himself is putting his political clout behind (or more to the point, he's surrounded himself with people who are empowered to undermine his stated agenda which is even more cynical than just having the balls to honestly break his promises).
I guess if we seek out and only highlight the words of Obama that match what he does, he's perfect. Of course, you have to ignore an increasingly large body of his historical assertions to play that game.
August 17, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is unrealistic to expect every single piece of legislation to give them every single thing they think needs to be fixed.
Health care reform is going to take numerous bills over a series of years to fix. Kind of like the New Deal wasn't complete by August of 1932, but instead took most of FDR's 12 years to get done.
Liberal are much too impatient.
August 18, 2009 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Audacity of hope, in contrast to the audacity of power. We have to hope his strategy for change is the right one. He seems to be more savvy than Jimmy Carter, our last liberal reformer president, let's hope he gets eight years to do the work.
August 17, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't buy your wish. Let's hope he EARNS another four years by making good on his first set of campaign promises. If he made too many to keep, that's his problem and would show he engaged in politispeak to get elected.
Does he think there are no repercussions to screwing the people who elected him? He said he wanted to be everybody's president. Fine. Let him ask everone but progressives for their votes and see how far that gets him.
If he can't deliver health care reform that includes a Public Option, maybe it's because he never has bothered himself to demand it from Congress.
August 17, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody gets to be president without being a politician. He never committed to the public option that both Edwards and Clinton campaigned on. If he broke some progressive hearts by not pushing for it as president it is not his problem. He had an opportunity to force the public option through in the spring but didn't take it, but rather has used it as a bargaining chip.
For all I know he is right, thought I repeatedly wrote comments here at TPM last summer and fall warning that he had already conceded the public option and that Hillary hadn't. I now know that while health insurance reform is extremely important, health care reform is even more so. We probably have the right politician in the White House now and all we can do is trust him.
August 17, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't campaign on Single-Payer, but he most certainly did campaign on the concept of a Public Option.
August 17, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got a clip or link? Krugman made quite an issue of Obama's lack of interest in the public option during the campaign. I followed the issue closely and saw no evidence of his favoring the pubic option.
August 18, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Progressive columnist Ezra Klein reported in mid July: "Obama Says Health-Care Reform "Must" Include Public Option." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/obama_says_health-care_reform.html
August 17, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So?
August 18, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it is his problem to be viewed as weak and rolled over on every issue that real progressives support.
After all Obama has on many occasions voiced strong support for it.
Is your position that he is entitled to that?
And the idea that you identify Obama as first a politician and then decide he is the only one to trust is kinda funny.
Progressives and independents are leaving in droves and not because they trust Obama, but because we now are clear in his beliefs.
August 17, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that he has been weak and has rolled over. I'm not entirely surprised, since he conceded the public option before the election, which I though was unnecessary. It seems that progressives are willing to leave him in droves because he hasn't been consistent in his statements during this process. Being a politician requires some equivocation and back sliding.
It has been clear over the past eighteen months that many here had unrealistic expectations for his presidency. He is in the midst of negotiations. If he didn't insist on the importance of the public option this spring, it may not have made it into any bill.
If he is willing to trade it now, I have to assume that he intended to do so from the beginning, or he's become convinced that it's an untenable position. I know he's a lot smarter than I am and he's got tons of information that we don't have, so I give him the benefit of the doubt.
You may remember the well-worn criticism of Bush that he was unable to change his tactics and goals in the face of facts. Obama is a realist and not an ideologue. As to his loss of support from the left, he may recognize that he will never live up to the standards of many dreamers purists and that they probably would abandon him as a matter of course anyway. He isn't my hero, but I do trust him, until he shows that he doesn't have our best interest at heart.
August 18, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
John, I beg to differ. Obama supported a public option, most definitely. The distinction he made between his plan and Hillary Clinton's involved the use of a mandate.
August 18, 2009 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there was a of talk about mandates.
Here's the Obama campaign's health care page:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
You can download the pdf of the plan from there as well. No mention of the public option that I can see. Maybe you can show me where he does campaign on it.
August 18, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. McCord,
I want to thank you for your support. It was vital in my election campaign.
Now DROP DEAD and please stand out of the way, in the corner there, a little further back please.
I think you can trust me to do the right things for you and everyone else. Please send a contribution to my reelection campaign. With your help we can and will change America.
Best wishes,
Barack Obama (for your Team of Rivals)
August 17, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful!
August 17, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I think it's ugly. Just a little vicious too, but mostly ugly. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
August 17, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes Ugly is true, Truth ugliness, but Keats could never have written that because it just ain't pertty...
August 17, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's complete BS @vaszlos & @obey
Obama says "drop dead"? Sounds eerily familiar to the death panel claim we're seeing so much of.
The fact that Health Insurance Reform is even on the table at all is the President's doing.
If it weren't on his agenda, it wouldn't be on Congress' right now.
How are your own representatives voting?
Have they come out for the public option?
That's how each of us should be judged.
It indicates whether or not we've worked hard enough to give Obama the support he clearly needs to get the Public Option through congress.
August 17, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true.
August 17, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes highlighting an ugly truth can be beautiful.
August 17, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cokie Roberts said today on NPR that the President has to deliver what the centrists want; the republicans will go to the mat over something like "end of life decisions," and then when they get their way on that, they just find something else to object to. The liberal Democrats, she said, will go along with whatever he ends up with because what else can they do?
Sad that it is ending up this way. The other option would be for Obama to have things on the table that are non-negotiable, and just dare anyone not to pass them, since the majority of Americans want them. He coulda been a contenda.
August 17, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have less and less respect for Cokie's analysis every day. She is mistaken in her thesis that congressional liberals have no choice.
August 17, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ripper, I'm having trouble getting used to your new avatar. Is it Elliot Gould? I was so used to the old one, but I'll try to adjust. I would put a picture of myself up, but I think the Luna Moth that was on my front porch is so pretty I can't bring myself to change it!
August 17, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I wanted CHANGE.
August 18, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have the choice to become former Democrats.
August 17, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
seriously? this is exactly when we need to close ranks and shore up our side's support for the public option.
August 17, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may be more practical to shore up our side's support for a third party.
The fix is in. Health insurance stocks soared on a down market day. Big Corporate wins. Americans lose.
Bill Maher is right. The US has a crazy party and a right-wing party. There is no progressive party. Time to start one.
August 17, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it may indeed be time to start a progressive party, or take our funds to Democracy For America and Dr. Howard Dean. He gets it and he is already "present". If the Dems see the dollars going that way, they will have to either replicate the positions of DFA, or watch their support whither.
August 18, 2009 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink